All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Thank you to the authors for addressing all the reviewer comments. I am pleased to accept and recommend your paper for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Ann Hedrick, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Thank you for your submission. I am pleased to accept your article pending minor revisions as suggested by the two expert reviewers. Both reviewers see the valuable contribution of this study to the existing literature base. I think incorporating these changes will make the paper much stronger. I look forward to receiving your resubmission.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. #]
Professional English is used throughout. Some of the grammar is a bit awkward, since the authors may not have English as a first language. However, these are very minor points and I feel that their written language is quite acceptable.
The experimental design is adequate and appropriate. I'm glad that the authors included all three treatments of: 1. with stingless bees, 2. without bees, and 3. with mechanical vibration to evaluate tomato fruit set and fruit quality in their greenhouse trials.
Only citing the John Free 1993 paper isn't adequate. It is an old paper. Please cite a few recent tomato pollination papers such as those by Peter Kevan and coauthors in Canada. On the other hand, you do cite the papers by dos Santos et al, and Moura-Moraes et al. 2021, Roselyn et al. 2009,
so perhaps this is enough.
Line 54 of manuscript. It is a mistake to say that tomato flowers produce any floral nectar. They do not! Lycoperesicon are pollen only flowers.
Tetragonal pagdeni Schwarz is certainly a pollen robber bee in this circumstance.
I'm surprised that Tetragona pagdeni would readily visit the flowers, but their data show enhanced fruit set when these bee visitors were present. Also, this bee does not buzz pollinate (sonicate) blossoms like other stingless bees (e.g. many Melipona spp. ).
All data appear to have been properly collected and analyzed, with appropriate statistical tests etc.
Conclusions are well stated and derive from the stats etc.
I'm glad that the authors monitored corbiculae pollen loads of returning pollen foragers in the greenhouse trials, documented with a camera. Bees were actively collecting pollen. It is good that the authors described their observational notes on the stingless bees at the flowers Lines 215 to 220). Were they pollen robbing by biting into the flowers? Certainly, they were unlikely to be buzz pollinators of the tomato blossoms. They do state NO buzzing. OK.
Perhaps you might want to cite one or both of these papers:
De Luca, P.A. and Vallejo-Marin, M., 2013. What's the ‘buzz’about? The ecology and evolutionary significance of buzz-pollination. Current opinion in plant biology, 16(4), pp.429-435.
Buchmann, S.L. (1983). Buzz pollination in angiosperms. In: Handbook of Experimental Pollination Biology (eds. Jones, C.E. & Little, R.J). Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, pp. 63-113.
The reader will find it helpful and grasp it well.
The research is clear and intriguing. Also, it's easy for fascinating people to follow the design.
Although the research is pretty accurate, it may need to continue and further explore the aspects in order to provide more precise results in the future.
The authors should make any necessary changes based on other suggestions in the content.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.